Modern reality is very subjective, very internal. I suppose an interesting
production might come
of moving in and out of Ibsen's world from and to a more stylistic
to create an internal environment that reflects the language instead of
through lights and sound.Cf. Sweeney A. Not perhaps Eliot's cup of tea (he
insisted on strict
realism, but his way (influence of Browne)is getting just too down & dusty.
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Resonant interval; dissociation of sensibility; punning
The language is Eliot's contribution; he was trying to create a poetry that
reflected the language of ordinary speech, such that a person would say, I
could write like that. The naturalistic/realistic stage production is
Brown's patterned after Ibsen's work. Eliot was trying for something new;
Brown was resorting to the old.
Hence the unnecessary tension that dragged the plays down. A new style of
production is needed that complements the language rather than upstanding
"Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 05:58:25 +0000, Peter Montgomery
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Unfortunately the E. Martin Browne effect levelled it all down to
>>homogenized Ibsen, an essay on wheels.
>Peter, please elaborate. This part "levelled it all down to homogenized
>Ibsen, an essay on wheels" is a bit above me but I think I know what you
>mean but I'm more interested in the Browne part. Do you think it was his
>influence that led to unnatural language, and if so, how and why?
> Rick Parker